• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Four-day test cricket

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
But what if it only succeeds in moving the "last day" issue to the 4th day? The percentages won't change and neither will the margins. So I am not sure if the "cost" reduction will actually be significant.
So I think you mean "cost" in the context of an overall loss of money, rather than gross cost. In which case you're very possibly right.

While it will absolutely reduce cost, it's debatable that it will increase profit
 

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
Yes, four day matches will mean tons of matches ending in three days. The fourth day is usually sold out in England. ECB, economic geniuses.
 

harsh.ag

Hall of Fame Member
A test structured like four ODI innings of 90 overs each isn't the worst idea imo, and something which I actually want to see esp in a day night format. Maybe I will hate it but would like to see that happen.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If 4-day Tests with slightly longer days are the difference between Tests being played and not, I'll take 4-day Tests.

Hell, used to be it was an effort to get Tests beyond three days when fast scoring became the norm in the 90s. Then pitches got flatter and we had the 500 vs 600 bore draws which did nothing for the health of the game except pad revenues and records. The very best bowlers still did okay but anyone less than a McGrath or Warne got trashed.

4 day Tests might also save the very concept of a Test series. I'll happily take a 3-Test series of 4-day Tests than the blue balls of the 2-Test series' we get a lot more now.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
If 4-day Tests with slightly longer days are the difference between Tests being played and not, I'll take 4-day Tests.

Hell, used to be it was an effort to get Tests beyond three days when fast scoring became the norm in the 90s. Then pitches got flatter and we had the 500 vs 600 bore draws which did nothing for the health of the game except pad revenues and records. The very best bowlers still did okay but anyone less than a McGrath or Warne got trashed.

4 day Tests might also save the very concept of a Test series. I'll happily take a 3-Test series of 4-day Tests than the blue balls of the 2-Test series' we get a lot more now.
Starting to convince me. If it will genuinely lead to more competitive pitches then it could be worth it.

Way too many roads in Test cricket from ~2006-present
 

Starfighter

International Coach
A test structured like four ODI innings of 90 overs each isn't the worst idea imo, and something which I actually want to see esp in a day night format. Maybe I will hate it but would like to see that happen.
It would become a very long limited overs match. Negative tactics would become more widespread especially from weaker bowling sides. Batsmen with patience and good technique would become further sidelined.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
While it will absolutely reduce cost, it's debatable that it will increase profit
But I thought the pitches were made slow and flat to last 5 days when India toured Australia in order to increase profits

(this is a joke post, I am joking)
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
If 4-day Tests with slightly longer days are the difference between Tests being played and not, I'll take 4-day Tests.

Hell, used to be it was an effort to get Tests beyond three days when fast scoring became the norm in the 90s. Then pitches got flatter and we had the 500 vs 600 bore draws which did nothing for the health of the game except pad revenues and records. The very best bowlers still did okay but anyone less than a McGrath or Warne got trashed.

4 day Tests might also save the very concept of a Test series. I'll happily take a 3-Test series of 4-day Tests than the blue balls of the 2-Test series' we get a lot more now.

Yeah but a possible 450 overs against 384?
 

zorax

likes this
But I thought the pitches were made slow and flat to last 5 days when India toured Australia in order to increase profits

(this is a joke post, I am joking)
inb4 BCCI and CA joint application to extend Tests to 6 days.

Maybe that could be the future of Test cricket. No only do you have different pitches and different balls, but different lengths as well.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I propose "Split Tests"

Split over two weekends and a Friday, this new brand of Test cricket brings us right back to our roots at club cricket, where 2 day cricket is often split between Sundays. In between the two weekends, bowlers will be able to recover, thus leading to higher quality spells during a test match. There will be greater interest, discussion and general buzz around the game in the 5 days between the weekends.

Spectators will be frothing at the gash to dig in to the games every weekend which will undoubtedly increase revenue. This will also eliminate the need for breaks in between Test matches. Once a Split Test (tm) ends, the next one can simply start on the following weekend. Viewers will be able to watch all days of a Split Test (tm) and there will be no pesky unprofitable days.
 

zorax

likes this
I propose "Split Tests"

Split over two weekends and a Friday, this new brand of Test cricket brings us right back to our roots at club cricket, where 2 day cricket is often split between Sundays. In between the two weekends, bowlers will be able to recover, thus leading to higher quality spells during a test match. There will be greater interest, discussion and general buzz around the game in the 5 days between the weekends.

Spectators will be frothing at the gash to dig in to the games every weekend which will undoubtedly increase revenue. This will also eliminate the need for breaks in between Test matches. Once a Split Test (tm) ends, the next one can simply start on the following weekend. Viewers will be able to watch all days of a Split Test (tm) and there will be no pesky unprofitable days.
What if Stokes gets arrested in between two weekends of an Ashes Split Test (tm)
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
What about 3 innings a side games, 1st Innings is 50 overs (basically an ODI), 2nd innings is 20 overs (1 T20), then the 3rd Innings of each side is timeless, or until the end of 4th day, (like a Test innings).

You get to play a Test, an ODI and a T20 or all in the same game! But at the end, there is only one winner, the team that scored the most runs total. Just think about the novel tactics and team selection . . .
 

zorax

likes this
Do it the other way around IMO. Chasing int the 6th innings when it's timeless is too appealing. Lets start with a timeless first innings, and the side who falls behind has to catch up in the 50 over and 20 over innings. More exciting. And imagine a 6th innings T20 chase. Would be glorious.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Do it the other way around IMO. Chasing int the 6th innings when it's timeless is too appealing. Lets start with a timeless first innings, and the side who falls behind has to catch up in the 50 over and 20 over innings. More exciting. And imagine a 6th innings T20 chase. Would be glorious.
But then you'd end up with a lot of games over before you get to the T20. ie. chasing 450 to win in 20 overs. Or already won the game. If 1 team gets a 200+ run lead in the 1st innings the game is basically over.

If you do it the other way then all innings & formats are still while the game is live.

edit: I do see the value of your way though. You can end up with the "needing x of x balls to win" and an exciting finish. But just think of how rare that would actually be for 2 teams to end up with such similar scores that a 3rd innings T20 would be close.

Also it's better to have the pitch deteriorate during the timeless innings than the limited-overs innings
 
Last edited:

zorax

likes this
How about we start with the T20 - that way both sides go hard af to get a crucial first innings lead.

You then have the ODI - gives sides enough breathing space to bat/bowl their way back into the game after the first innings

We then have the timeless innings, the ultimate decider. Pitch will have begun to wear too, making it tricky from the get go.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
How about we start with the T20 - that way both sides go hard af to get a crucial first innings lead.

You then have the ODI - gives sides enough breathing space to bat/bowl their way back into the game after the first innings

We then have the timeless innings, the ultimate decider. Pitch will have begun to wear too, making it tricky from the get go.
Perfect.

And if you lead by 50 runs or more after the T20 innings, or 100+ after the ODI innings, you can enforce the follow-on.

I've put too much thought into this for it not to happen.
 

Top